Weblog 2: the conflict

I my opinion the Pressman article was the easiest to follow of all the readings we have done so far.  He gave a good outline of past history and an explaination of the area but only what was really necessary to understand the conflict instead of adding all past confusing details.  He talked about the Balfour Declaration which pushed England into the conflict near its beginning.  While I am still not very knowledgable on the conflict it seems to me that the United States has kind of taken over this role in attempting to intervene and though it might be negatively looked upon by other nations I think some sort of outside influence is necessary in making negotiations in any conflict. Though it would maybe be better looked at if it was the UN attempting at peace instead of the US at the front.

I don't really know if this is a conflict that can be solved anytime soon.  Since it is over the Holy Land for both religions as well as a homeland for Palestinians and Israelies it doesn't really seem right to me to allow either to individual lay claim to Jerusalem.  Just at Washington D.C. is kind of its own state in the United States an approach like this might be best for this area.  Giving each side land around this area and sharing the Holy Land could either lead to worse conflict or a peaceful solution. While I think the US or UN or both need to help the conflict, Pressman's reading leads me to think some presidents have been bias toward one side which will not help the conflict.  Any outside parties need to remain neutral, which of course is easier said than done when you put in outside countries individual agendas or concerns.